The chemical composition and grades of barley and oat varieties

Complete analyses of 45 barley varieties and 46 oat varieties are given. These varieties were selected from the varietal plats at the Oregon Experiment Station. The samples were grown in two different years and on three different soil types. The analyses presented show the percentages of crude protein, ether extract, ash, and crude fiber, expressed on the basis of a moisture-free sample. The percentage of total digestible nutrients, computed according to the method of Henry and Morrison, is used to compare varieties. The barley samples show a lower protein content than the standard analyses of Henry and Morrison, but the percentage of total digestible nutrients and of other factors is similar. The range in the total digestible nutrient value of the 45 samples is only 2.4%. The Hannchen variety had the highest feeding value, but it was not significantly higher than the other varieties. No consistent difference between winter and spring types of barley was shown. The protein content of oats was also lower than is shown by standard analyses, although the total digestible nutrient value is similar. A range of 7% was found in the total digestible nutrient value of the 46 samples of oats. The winter oat varieties were superior to spring varieties in that they had more protein, more fat, less fiber, and a higher total digestible nutrient value. The preference of feeders for the winter type of oats is amply borne out by these analyses. Correlations between total digestible nutrients and ether extract, crude fiber, and test weight are given. The correlations with ether extract and crude fiber are higher for oats than for barley. The correlations for total digestible nutrient and test weight are low for both oats and barley. All of the oat samples graded No. 1, although the range in total digestible nutrients shows significant differences in feeding value. In contrast, the grades of barley samples ranged from No. 1 to No. 4 with only a slight range in total digestible nutrient value. The grades and analyses of these samples show, that feeding value is not always reflected in the grade statement. Certain grading factors in the federal standards must be evaluated carefully or the grade statement will give an erroneous indication of quality. Federal standards should be so changed that such discrepancies are lessened. Feed grades for barley, in which more accurate evaluation of certain factors is possible, should be developed. The adherence of awns, which has been pointed out as lowering both the test weight and grade of barley, is a desirable quality in rolled barley, while skinned and broken barley may be objectionable for rolling. On the other hand, there is a question as to the deleterious effects of skinned and broken kernels in feed barley to be fed whole or ground. Stain in barley and oats need not necessarily lower the feeding value. Consideration should be given to the test weight of oats, either by eliminating it as a grading factor altogether and requiring a notation on the grade certificate or by providing premium grades for high test weight oats. The value of feed grain is related directly to its protein content, which is variable. Optional supervised protein testing of feed grains might be worth while.